sickening penn state football allegations

[seeline]

what he said!

[Tim McG]

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense at all.

I think you misunderstand something: failure to report child abuse (of any kind) is, in itself, a crime. Paterno's good guy image just went down the toilet because of his complete moral and ethical FAIL on this.

But, as JETman and Leeway have said, this is only the beginning of what will (imo) prove to be a far uglier - and more pervasive - problem. I am certain that Sandusky's "charity," The Second Mile, is going to be the subject of a great deal of scrutiny and attention,

if only that had been true from 1977 on (when he started it). His known victims were primarily Second Mile kids.

Saying "I reported it to my superiors" sounds suspiciously like "I was just following orders." [cue cilip of Pilate washing his hands]

I'm not sure what your point is....but I'll give it a go.

Reporting child abuse to one's superiors is EXACTLY what is supposed to happen. It is exactly what Paterno did. It is exactly what the law requires. What did you expect him to do....form a lynch mob?

We are a Nation of Laws and "just following orders" is what the law requires. There is nothing else that can be done within the law by the person doing the reporting. The legal authority to exact repercussion or make an arrest is not within Paterno's legal right to pursue. It is the duty of the authorities to pursue justice. Doesn't the child have the right to privacy? Isn't the offender gauranteed the right to a fair trial? What if the reporting individual is WRONG? Wouldn't that place him/her in a position to be sued or jailed for making false and public accusations ahead of a legal investigation? Did you think this through...?

So, I'm not getting what your complaint is here.

Edited November 9, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[seeline]

NOBODY CALLED THE COPS WHEN MCQUEARY ACTUALLY SAW SANDUSKY RAPING A 10 YEAR-OLD KID. [caps are for emphasis; not yelling]

It's that simple.

See this: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/133435418.html?cmpid=15585797

*

And this (awfully late in coming, though):

November 8

10:42 p.m. – The Penn State Board of Trustees has released a statement.

"The Board of Trustees of The Pennsylvania State University is outraged by the horrifying details contained in the Grand Jury Report. As parents, alumni and members of the Penn State Community, our hearts go out to all of those impacted by these terrible events, especially the tragedies involving children and their families. We cannot begin to express the combination of sorrow and anger that we feel about the allegations surrounding Jerry Sandusky. We hear those of you who feel betrayed and we want to assure all of you that the Board will take swift, decisive action.

At its regular meeting on Friday, November 11, 2011, the Board will appoint a Special Committee, members of which are currently being identified, to undertake a full and complete investigation of the circumstances that gave rise to the Grand Jury Report. This Special Committee will be commissioned to determine what failures occurred, who is responsible and what measures are necessary to insure that this never happens at our University again and that those responsible are held fully accountable. The Special Committee will have whatever resources are necessary to thoroughly fulfill its charge, including independent counsel and investigative teams, and there will be no restrictions placed on its scope or activities. Upon the completion of this investigation, a complete report will be presented at a future public session of the Board of Trustees.

Penn State has always strived for honesty, integrity and the highest moral standards in all of its programs. We will not tolerate any violation of these principles. We educate over 95,000 students every year and we take this responsibility very seriously. We are dedicated to protecting those who are placed in our care. We promise you that we are committed to restoring public trust in the University."

taken from the liveblog at ONwardState - http://onwardstate.com/2011/11/08/live-blog-penn-state-charges-sandusky-scandal/

Edited November 9, 2011 by seeline

[Tim McG]

NOBODY CALLED THE COPS WHEN MCQUEARY ACTUALLY SAW SANDUSKY RAPING A 10 YEAR-OLD KID. [caps are for emphasis; not yelling]

It's that simple.

See this: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/133435418.html?cmpid=15585797

*

And this (awfully late in coming, though):

November 8

10:42 p.m. – The Penn State Board of Trustees has released a statement.

"The Board of Trustees of The Pennsylvania State University is outraged by the horrifying details contained in the Grand Jury Report. As parents, alumni and members of the Penn State Community, our hearts go out to all of those impacted by these terrible events, especially the tragedies involving children and their families. We cannot begin to express the combination of sorrow and anger that we feel about the allegations surrounding Jerry Sandusky. We hear those of you who feel betrayed and we want to assure all of you that the Board will take swift, decisive action.

At its regular meeting on Friday, November 11, 2011, the Board will appoint a Special Committee, members of which are currently being identified, to undertake a full and complete investigation of the circumstances that gave rise to the Grand Jury Report. This Special Committee will be commissioned to determine what failures occurred, who is responsible and what measures are necessary to insure that this never happens at our University again and that those responsible are held fully accountable. The Special Committee will have whatever resources are necessary to thoroughly fulfill its charge, including independent counsel and investigative teams, and there will be no restrictions placed on its scope or activities. Upon the completion of this investigation, a complete report will be presented at a future public session of the Board of Trustees.

Penn State has always strived for honesty, integrity and the highest moral standards in all of its programs. We will not tolerate any violation of these principles. We educate over 95,000 students every year and we take this responsibility very seriously. We are dedicated to protecting those who are placed in our care. We promise you that we are committed to restoring public trust in the University."

taken from the liveblog at ONwardState - http://onwardstate.com/2011/11/08/live-blog-penn-state-charges-sandusky-scandal/

That is the legal duty of the authority he reported to call the police...not Paterno.

How, then can he be at fault because the people he legally reported to did nothing?

Maybe you missed this part of my last post:

We are a Nation of Laws and "just following orders" is what the law requires. There is nothing else that can be done within the law by the person doing the reporting. The legal authority to exact repercussion or make an arrest is not within Paterno's legal right to pursue. It is the duty of the authorities to pursue justice. Doesn't the child have the right to privacy? Isn't the offender gauranteed the right to a fair trial? What if the reporting individual is WRONG? Wouldn't that place him/her in a position to be sued or jailed for making false and public accusations ahead of a legal investigation? Did you think this through...?

Paterno is required to follow the law, not break it or usurp it.

The AD blew this one.

Edited November 9, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[seeline]

I'd rather not engage in further discussion with you on this topic.

best,

s.

[Tim McG]

I'd rather not engage in further discussion with you on this topic.

best,

s.

M'kay.

Maybe you could do me the favor and research child abuse reporting laws. It might cut down on the aggravation.

Cheers.

[Big Wheel]

Fine. I took a look at the grand jury report and here's the relevant statute, 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6311, subsection (d): http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/domestic-relations/00.063.011.000.html

(d) Civil action for discrimination against person filing

report.--Any person who, under this section, is required to

report or cause a report of suspected child abuse to be made and

who, in good faith, makes or causes the report to be made and,

as a result thereof, is discharged from his employment or in any

other manner is discriminated against with respect to

compensation, hire, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges of

employment, may commence an action in the court of common pleas

of the county in which the alleged unlawful discharge or

discrimination occurred for appropriate relief. If the court

finds that the person is an individual who, under this section,

is required to report or cause a report of suspected child abuse

to be made and who, in good faith, made or caused to be made a

report of suspected child abuse and, as a result thereof, was

discharged or discriminated against with respect to

compensation, hire, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges of

employment, it may issue an order granting appropriate relief,

including, but not limited to, reinstatement with back pay. The

department may intervene in any action commenced under this

subsection.

So while it seems plausible (and I suspect this is what Paterno's lawyers will argue) that Paterno did not legally fall under the description of a person required to report child exploitation to PA authorities, based on this section it really seems like a ridiculous stretch to think that the court system is not going to be favorably disposed to someone who:

-falls under subsection © as a subordinate rather than sections (a) and (b) as a legally required reporter

-goes above and beyond their legal requirement to report by subsequently going over their superiors' heads to report the suspected crime directly to the police

-got fired for their trouble

-IS JOE PATERNO FOR CHRISSAKES. Do you really think Joe Paterno would have had to worry about getting fired because he went over Schultz/Curley's head about this?

Edited November 9, 2011 by Big Wheel

[Dave James]

As good an argument as I've seen as to why Joe must go. It's not what he should have done, it's what he could have done.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/11/08/penn-state-joe-paterno-scandal/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t11_a2

[Jazzmoose]

What perplexes me is how anyone could even suggest Joe Paterno had anything to do with the cover-up.

By law, he reported the incident to his superiors. By law, it is up to them to pursue the issue including contacting authorities. Yet there are those in the media who insist upon saying he needed to do more. What more can he do?

Jesus! Call the friggin' police; that's what a normal person would do.

Added:

Oops, sorry; you're talking about Paterno, I was thinking of the guy who walked in on the thing. As far as I'm concerned, he's no hero in this thing; his brain had to be warped.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Jazzmoose

[Tim McG]

Paterno did all that he could. Fact is, he cannot hire and fire. He has no legal authority over anyone on or, in this case, off his staff. "Going public" as you say and effectively going over the heads of his superiors can be grounds for termination...his. So I really do not think you understand how the system works in cases such as these.

Are you kidding? It would be one thing to hold a big press conference and declare Sandusky a pederast, but I find it extremely hard to believe that there are no legal protections for those who bypass their institution's chain of command to report this kind of crime directly to the police. Paterno not only did nothing once it was clear the administration had decided to sweep the whole Sandusky thing under the rug, he appears to be saying Mike McQueary lied to the grand jury about what McQueary specifically told Paterno.

Tell you what...when it's your turn to report on something like this you can usurp the chain of command and see what happens to you, OK?

Oh and good luck with that law suit the accused will slap you with and the non-support from your boss, CPS and the police because YOU thought you didn't have to follow the legal procedure.

Edited November 9, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

Fine. I took a look at the grand jury report and here's the relevant statute, 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6311, subsection (d): http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/domestic-relations/00.063.011.000.html

(d) Civil action for discrimination against person filing

report.--Any person who, under this section, is required to

report or cause a report of suspected child abuse to be made and

who, in good faith, makes or causes the report to be made and,

as a result thereof, is discharged from his employment or in any

other manner is discriminated against with respect to

compensation, hire, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges of

employment, may commence an action in the court of common pleas

of the county in which the alleged unlawful discharge or

discrimination occurred for appropriate relief. If the court

finds that the person is an individual who, under this section,

is required to report or cause a report of suspected child abuse

to be made and who, in good faith, made or caused to be made a

report of suspected child abuse and, as a result thereof, was

discharged or discriminated against with respect to

compensation, hire, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges of

employment, it may issue an order granting appropriate relief,

including, but not limited to, reinstatement with back pay. The

department may intervene in any action commenced under this

subsection.

So while it seems plausible (and I suspect this is what Paterno's lawyers will argue) that Paterno did not legally fall under the description of a person required to report child exploitation to PA authorities, based on this section it really seems like a ridiculous stretch to think that the court system is not going to be favorably disposed to someone who:

-falls under subsection © as a subordinate rather than sections (a) and (b) as a legally required reporter

-goes above and beyond their legal requirement to report by subsequently going over their superiors' heads to report the suspected crime directly to the police

-got fired for their trouble

-IS JOE PATERNO FOR CHRISSAKES. Do you really think Joe Paterno would have had to worry about getting fired because he went over Schultz/Curley's head about this?

I'm not understanding you.

Paterno reported the incident. What more can he do? You guys all act as if he was an eye witness to the crime and is covering for a friend. He did what was legally asked of him: Report an allegation.

As to wrongful termination...do you have any idea how long it would take to prove something like that? Meanwhile, the poor schmuck who gets canned is out of work and his career ruined. That is why there is a procedure to follow. If I were to go straight to the police over an allegation like this the first thing they would ask is if I reported this to my superiors and did they go to the CPS. That is how it works, folks.

I think what people are forgetting is that at the time it was just an accusation. How anyone can find the person completely away from the crime at fault for that crime is beyond any reasonable understanding of the law. The law says the person must report the allegation. It does not say he/she is responsible for the crime itself. The authorities must conduct an investigation, not Paterno.

That man is in custody.

Edited November 9, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[Chicago Expat]

Paterno did all that he could. Fact is, he cannot hire and fire. He has no legal authority over anyone on or, in this case, off his staff. "Going public" as you say and effectively going over the heads of his superiors can be grounds for termination...his. So I really do not think you understand how the system works in cases such as these.

Are you kidding? It would be one thing to hold a big press conference and declare Sandusky a pederast, but I find it extremely hard to believe that there are no legal protections for those who bypass their institution's chain of command to report this kind of crime directly to the police. Paterno not only did nothing once it was clear the administration had decided to sweep the whole Sandusky thing under the rug, he appears to be saying Mike McQueary lied to the grand jury about what McQueary specifically told Paterno.

Tell you what...when it's your turn to report on something like this you can usurp the chain of command and see what happens to you, OK?

Oh and good luck with that law suit the accused will slap you with and the non-support from your boss, CPS and the police because YOU thought you didn't have to follow the legal procedure.

I will unilaterally accept your wishes of good luck.

Because if I ever see a child attacked or hear a first-hand account from a witness of a child being attacked like that, I will go to the police, not my "boss".

I find it reprehensible that you would express an opinion that people who are victims of assault or witnesses to it should have something to fear by speaking to the police.

[Chalupa]

"...with the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."

Joe Paterno 11/9/2011

[Tim McG]

Paterno did all that he could. Fact is, he cannot hire and fire. He has no legal authority over anyone on or, in this case, off his staff. "Going public" as you say and effectively going over the heads of his superiors can be grounds for termination...his. So I really do not think you understand how the system works in cases such as these.

Are you kidding? It would be one thing to hold a big press conference and declare Sandusky a pederast, but I find it extremely hard to believe that there are no legal protections for those who bypass their institution's chain of command to report this kind of crime directly to the police. Paterno not only did nothing once it was clear the administration had decided to sweep the whole Sandusky thing under the rug, he appears to be saying Mike McQueary lied to the grand jury about what McQueary specifically told Paterno.

Tell you what...when it's your turn to report on something like this you can usurp the chain of command and see what happens to you, OK?

Oh and good luck with that law suit the accused will slap you with and the non-support from your boss, CPS and the police because YOU thought you didn't have to follow the legal procedure.

I will unilaterally accept your wishes of good luck.

Because if I ever see a child attacked or hear a first-hand account from a witness of a child being attacked like that, I will go to the police, not my "boss".

I find it reprehensible that you would express an opinion that people who are victims of assault or witnesses to it should have something to fear by speaking to the police.

So we're talking about the alleged eye witness now?

That is a completly different thing than being a reporter of an allegation.

I have seen children attacked in a physically damaging way and I have stepped in and stopped it myself. That is NOT the same thing as hearing an allegation then reporting it to one's superiors.

Stay on topic, OK?

"...with the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."

Joe Paterno 11/9/2011

As do any of us who have reported on child abuse.

It sickens me every time I have to make a report....I'm stll haunted by some of the crap I've had to report.

[Chicago Expat]

Paterno did all that he could. Fact is, he cannot hire and fire. He has no legal authority over anyone on or, in this case, off his staff. "Going public" as you say and effectively going over the heads of his superiors can be grounds for termination...his. So I really do not think you understand how the system works in cases such as these.

Are you kidding? It would be one thing to hold a big press conference and declare Sandusky a pederast, but I find it extremely hard to believe that there are no legal protections for those who bypass their institution's chain of command to report this kind of crime directly to the police. Paterno not only did nothing once it was clear the administration had decided to sweep the whole Sandusky thing under the rug, he appears to be saying Mike McQueary lied to the grand jury about what McQueary specifically told Paterno.

Tell you what...when it's your turn to report on something like this you can usurp the chain of command and see what happens to you, OK?

Oh and good luck with that law suit the accused will slap you with and the non-support from your boss, CPS and the police because YOU thought you didn't have to follow the legal procedure.

I will unilaterally accept your wishes of good luck.

Because if I ever see a child attacked or hear a first-hand account from a witness of a child being attacked like that, I will go to the police, not my "boss".

I find it reprehensible that you would express an opinion that people who are victims of assault or witnesses to it should have something to fear by speaking to the police.

So we're talking about the alleged eye witness now?

That is a completly different thing than being a reporter of an allegation.

I have seen children attacked in a physically damaging way and I have stepped in and stopped it myself. That is NOT the same thing as hearing an allegation then reporting it to one's superiors.

Stay on topic, OK?

I believe I was.

If a grad assistant came to me and told me that he had witnessed a boy being attacked in the campus showers, my first call isn't to an athletic director, it's to the police. I drive that grad assistant over to the police station myself and have him tell investigators what he saw. I get the justice system involved before I concern myself with anything else. Period.

[PHILLYQ]

Here's something from APRIL:

http://www.timesonline.com/columnists/sports/mark_madden/madden-sandusky-a-state-secret/article_863d3c82-5e6f-11e0-9ae5-001a4bcf6878.html#user-comment-area

[Tim McG]

Paterno did all that he could. Fact is, he cannot hire and fire. He has no legal authority over anyone on or, in this case, off his staff. "Going public" as you say and effectively going over the heads of his superiors can be grounds for termination...his. So I really do not think you understand how the system works in cases such as these.

Are you kidding? It would be one thing to hold a big press conference and declare Sandusky a pederast, but I find it extremely hard to believe that there are no legal protections for those who bypass their institution's chain of command to report this kind of crime directly to the police. Paterno not only did nothing once it was clear the administration had decided to sweep the whole Sandusky thing under the rug, he appears to be saying Mike McQueary lied to the grand jury about what McQueary specifically told Paterno.

Tell you what...when it's your turn to report on something like this you can usurp the chain of command and see what happens to you, OK?

Oh and good luck with that law suit the accused will slap you with and the non-support from your boss, CPS and the police because YOU thought you didn't have to follow the legal procedure.

I will unilaterally accept your wishes of good luck.

Because if I ever see a child attacked or hear a first-hand account from a witness of a child being attacked like that, I will go to the police, not my "boss".

I find it reprehensible that you would express an opinion that people who are victims of assault or witnesses to it should have something to fear by speaking to the police.

So we're talking about the alleged eye witness now?

That is a completly different thing than being a reporter of an allegation.

I have seen children attacked in a physically damaging way and I have stepped in and stopped it myself. That is NOT the same thing as hearing an allegation then reporting it to one's superiors.

Stay on topic, OK?

I believe I was.

If a grad assistant came to me and told me that he had witnessed a boy being attacked in the campus showers, my first call isn't to an athletic director, it's to the police. I drive that grad assistant over to the police station myself and have him tell investigators what he saw. I get the justice system involved before I concern myself with anything else. Period.

OK.

Then when you get to the police they will ask you if you filed a report with Child Protective Services. Then, if the allegations are false, you get to deal with the eventual fallout...on your own, with absolutely no support. Then, the name of the child you mention's family will want to get a piece of you as well.

If ID'ing child abusers was that simple, there would be no child abuse. That is why those procedures are in place: To protect the reporter as well as the victim and the accused. Otherwise, accusations would fly over anything, true or not, and innocent individuals as well as the guilty will suffer great harm.

Not to be flip about it but the Salem Witch Trials should have taught us that much, don't you think?

Edited November 9, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[alocispepraluger102]

thanks GS, for the excellent realistic perspective.

[Tim McG]

Here's something from APRIL:

http://www.timesonline.com/columnists/sports/mark_madden/madden-sandusky-a-state-secret/article_863d3c82-5e6f-11e0-9ae5-001a4bcf6878.html#user-comment-area

It's blind speculation like Madden's which perpetuates the myth a reporter of sexual abuse is somehow a part of the crime itself. Asking questions like that is sheer foolishness and could be asked of anyone about anything in order to create "guilt" where none exists.

C'mon, PhillyQ...who's the criminal here? Sandusky or Paterno?

thanks GS, for the excellent realistic perspective.

Glad to.

My feeling is if a person has never had to report a crime of child abuse based upon an allegation, they have no idea how much is at stake or what the emotional cost is to the reporting individual.

[JETman]

Here's something from APRIL:

http://www.timesonline.com/columnists/sports/mark_madden/madden-sandusky-a-state-secret/article_863d3c82-5e6f-11e0-9ae5-001a4bcf6878.html#user-comment-area

It's blind speculation like Madden's which perpetuates the myth a reporter of sexual abuse is somehow a part of the crime itself. Asking questions like that is sheer foolishness and could be asked of anyone about anything in order to create "guilt" where none exists.

C'mon, PhillyQ...who's the criminal here? Sandusky or Paterno?

thanks GS, for the excellent realistic perspective.

Glad to.

My feeling is if a person has never had to report a crime of child abuse based upon an allegation, they have no idea how much is at stake or what the emotional cost is to the reporting individual.

I wholeheartedly believe that Madden raises a very valid point --- that big money college athletics is as much to blame for the crimes and covering up of those crimes that are committed by the scum it produces as the scum itself. Why is this so difficult to understand??? How can one possibly idolize the morons who populate professional sports with a clear conscience???

[seeline]

Pennsylvania § 42.42. Suspected child abuse—mandated reporting requirements.

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/049/chapter42/s42.42.html

As they note, there is a 24-hour hotline.

It looks like whoever was told (at Penn State, more than once) failed to comply with the minimum requirements of the law re. the timeframe of reporting suspected(or actual) child abuse; further, that standards of reporting were not met.

*

The questions of bribery, payoffs, threats.... they're all a realistic part of the scenario regarding Sandusky, the Penn State athletic department and relevant admins., The Second Mile, local police departments, etc. etc. etc.

A great many people seem to have kept their mouths shut over a long period of time. Meanwhile, Sandusky was asked to give a commencement speech on the University Park campus as recently as 2007. (See centredaily.com, pennlive.com, onwardstate.com, statecollege.com and the Daily Collegian's site + Twitter feeds for details and more coverage.)

Edited November 9, 2011 by seeline

[alocispepraluger102]

Pennsylvania § 42.42. Suspected child abuse—mandated reporting requirements.

http://www.pacode.co...r42/s42.42.html

As they note, there is a 24-hour hotline.

It looks like whoever was told (at Penn State, more than once) failed to comply with the minimum requirements of the law re. the timeframe of reporting suspected(or actual) child abuse; further, that standards of reporting were not met.

*

The questions of bribery, payoffs, threats.... they're all a realistic part of the scenario regarding Sandusky, the Penn State athletic department and relevant admins., The Second Mile, local police departments, etc. etc. etc.

A great many people seem to have kept their mouths shut over a long period of time. Meanwhile, Sandusky was asked to give a commencement speech on the University Park campus as recently as 2007. (See centredaily.com, pennlive.com, onwardstate.com, statecollege.com and the Daily Collegian's site + Twitter feeds for details and more coverage.)

where are the feds???? how much shredding is going on. the shredders are working 24 hours.

as i recall, sandusky delivered a commencement address in 2007.

Edited November 9, 2011 by alocispepraluger102

[seeline]

They should be coming in, specifically on an investigation of violations of the Clery Act:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/11/08/142146941/congressman-calls-for-federal-investigation-into-penn-state-scandal

About the shredding (and hard drive wipes, I'm sure): I know. Wish there was some way it could be stopped.

Re. 2007 commencement speech: yes, it's mentioned in my last. His most recent football camp was in 2009, at the Behrend campus (PSU) in Erie.

*

The loopholes in the Child Protective Services law (and other things) - op-ed from the Harrisburg (PA) Patriot

Includes a proposal to amend the law.

Edited November 9, 2011 by seeline

[Tim McG]

Here's something from APRIL:

http://www.timesonline.com/columnists/sports/mark_madden/madden-sandusky-a-state-secret/article_863d3c82-5e6f-11e0-9ae5-001a4bcf6878.html#user-comment-area

It's blind speculation like Madden's which perpetuates the myth a reporter of sexual abuse is somehow a part of the crime itself. Asking questions like that is sheer foolishness and could be asked of anyone about anything in order to create "guilt" where none exists.

C'mon, PhillyQ...who's the criminal here? Sandusky or Paterno?

thanks GS, for the excellent realistic perspective.

Glad to.

My feeling is if a person has never had to report a crime of child abuse based upon an allegation, they have no idea how much is at stake or what the emotional cost is to the reporting individual.

I wholeheartedly believe that Madden raises a very valid point --- that big money college athletics is as much to blame for the crimes and covering up of those crimes that are committed by the scum it produces as the scum itself. Why is this so difficult to understand??? How can one possibly idolize the morons who populate professional sports with a clear conscience???

I don't disagree.

But we are dealing with whether or not Paterno did what is required of him according to the law.

A separate issue from rank and baseless speculation or idolizing sports figures.

Edited November 9, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

They should be coming in, specifically on an investigation of violations of the Clery Act:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/11/08/142146941/congressman-calls-for-federal-investigation-into-penn-state-scandal

About the shredding (and hard drive wipes, I'm sure): I know. Wish there was some way it could be stopped.

Re. 2007 commencement speech: yes, it's mentioned in my last. His most recent football camp was in 2009, at the Behrend campus (PSU) in Erie.

*

The loopholes in the Child Protective Services law (and other things) - op-ed from the Harrisburg (PA) Patriot

Includes a proposal to amend the law.

Maybe now we see just how complicated the process of ID'ing then convicting child abusers really is.

And if the officials dropped the ball or declined to report they, not Paterno, are guilty of breaking the law.

Edited November 9, 2011 by GoodSpeak